ENERGY SYSTEM ACQUISITION ADVISORY BOARD (ESAAB) STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (OECM) NOVEMBER 2011
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ENERGY SYSTEM ACQUISITION ADVISORY BOARD (ESAAB)
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE (SOP)
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT (OECM)
NOVEMBER 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.2 SOP Objectives…….……………………………………………………………... 1
1.3 Applicability………………………………………………………………………... 2
2.0 ESAAB PURPOSE…..……………………………………………………………………. 2
3.0 MEMBERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITIES…………………………………………… 3
4.0 DETERMINING THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN ESAAB…………………………... 5
4.1 General 6
4.2 Critical Decisions and BCPs 6
5.0 ESAAB PROCEDURES 6
5.1 Scheduling ESAAB Meetings 6
5.2 ESAAB Preparation 6
5.3 Call for Special ESAAB Review 8
6.0 “PAPER” ESAAB 8
6.1 Procedures 8
7.0 ESAAB-EQUIVALENT MEETINGS 9
7.1 Procedures 9
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS A-1
APPENDIX B: ESAAB ACTIVITIES TIMELINE B-1
APPENDIX C: PRESENTATION OUTLINE FOR THE ESAAB MEETING C-1
APPENDIX D: ESAAB MEMBERS D-1
APPENDIX E: EXAMPLE OF THE DECISION MEMORANDUM E-1
APPENDIX F: EXAMPLE OF THE STAFF MEMORANDUM F-1
APPENDIX G: EXAMPLE OF THE ESAAB MEETING MINUTES G-1
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) discusses all elements of an Energy System
Acquisition Advisory Board (ESAAB) to include membership, member roles and
responsibilities, scheduling, procedures, and products. This SOP also assists those
responsible in preparation for ESAAB meetings, particularly the Office of Engineering
and Construction Management (OECM), Programs, and Project Teams.
1.1 BACKGROUND. Department of Energy Order 413.3 (DOE O 413.3B), hereafter
referred to as the Order, was updated on November 29, 2011, to enhance DOE program
and project management direction for the acquisition of capital assets with the goal of
delivering projects within the original performance baseline (PB), cost and schedule, and
fully capable of meeting mission performance, safeguards and security, and
environmental, safety, and health requirements unless impacted by a directed change.
ESAAB membership and responsibilities are spelled out in the Order. DOE O 413.3B
can be found at and downloaded from https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives.
1.2 SOP OBJECTIVES.
1.2.1 To establish consistent ESAAB processes and procedures to facilitate informed,
objective, and documented strategic and major system critical decisions and baseline
change proposals for all new missions.
1.2.2 To assist Programs and Project Teams in the scheduling and preparation for ESAAB
meetings.
1.3 APPLICABILITY.
1.3.1 This SOP should be used in the scheduling and preparing for a Senior Acquisition
Executive (SAE) ESAAB, facilitating the ESAAB decision-making process, and
determining when to consider using a streamlined ESAAB process.
1.3.2 Similar decision procedures may be applied to non-major system projects. These
procedures should be individually tailored by the designated AE to the size and
complexity of the project.
1.3.3 This SOP does NOT impose new requirements or constitute Department policy. Nor is
this SOP intended to modify the ESAAB process delineated in DOE Orders or policy
memorandums.
2.0 ESAAB PURPOSE
The purpose of the ESAAB is to assist the SAE in the decision-making process on critical
decision milestones, baseline change proposals, and site selections for major system
acquisitions and major projects. Furthermore, the ESAAB provides a formal,
2
documented, and auditable management process for making decisions that affect major
system acquisitions and major projects.
3.0 ESAAB MEMBERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITIES
ESAAB membership and responsibilities are delineated in DOE O 413.3B. A current list
(office symbol, name, phone #) of ESAAB, “As-Needed” ESAAB, and Pre-ESAAB
members is available at http://energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-
management/project-management/documents-and-publications.
4.0 ESAAB FUNCTION
4.1 General. An ESAAB assists the SAE in approving critical decisions related to Major
System Projects and performance baseline deviation dispositions. A critical decision
(CD) is a formal determination made by the SAE or AE at a specific point during the
project that allows the project to proceed to the next phase or CD. A Major System
Project is a project with a Total Project Cost (TPC) greater than or equal to $750M or as
designated by the Deputy Secretary. A performance baseline deviation occurs when the
approved TPC, CD-4 completion date, or performance and scope parameters cannot be
met.
5.0 SCHEDULING OF AN ESAAB
5.1.1 OECM normally provides staff support to the Acquisition Executive and board members
for ESAAB presentations (e.g., schedules, agenda, pre-briefing and presentation
requirements).
5.1.2 The steps outlined in Appendix B provide the framework and normal working times and
responsibilities for the activities prior to and immediately following the ESAAB. This
includes the steps to schedule pre-ESAAB meetings and ESAAB reviews and the
appropriate responsible office.
5.1.3 A decision/review schedule will be developed and maintained current by the ESAAB
Secretariat (OECM) for those projects which require a board review because of an
acquisition phase decision, siting decision, problems, or other project developments that
merit management attention. The activity timeline in Appendix B provides the necessary
steps leading up to the ESAAB meeting.
5.1.4 Upon approval by the Acquisition Executive, formal scheduling of reviews will be
accomplished by the ESAAB Secretariat.
5.1.5 Unscheduled board meetings may also be called at the request of the Acquisition
Executive or a PSO. These requests will be made through the ESAAB Secretariat.
6.0 ESAAB PROCEDURES
3
6.1 General. An ESAAB assists the SAE in approving critical decisions related to Major
System Projects and performance baseline deviation dispositions. A Major System
Project is a project with a Total Project Cost (TPC) greater than or equal to $750M or as
designated by the Deputy Secretary.
6.2 Critical Decisions and BCPs. The Deputy Secretary serves as SAE for projects with a
TPC greater than or equal to $750M. Critical Decisions (CD) or BCPs for these projects
must be proposed by the appropriate PSO and approved by the SAE before proceeding to
the next project phase or critical decision. In addition, other projects may require SAE
approval of a BCP above certain threshold values as defined in DOE O 413.3B (current
version). The description and/or definitions of Critical Decisions and Baseline Change
Proposal are provided in DOE O 413.3B.
7.0 ESAAB PROCEDURES
The SAE makes critical decisions for major system projects and those delineated in DOE
413.3B. .
7.1 Scheduling ESAAB Meetings.
7.2 ESAAB Preparation. It is essential that the presenters brief (see Appendix C) the
significant issues and problems that are associated with the project. These issues and
problems should be fully coordinated well in advance with cognizant staff and program
officials. Also, the Acquisition Executive and the sponsoring PSO shall receive concise
pre-briefings to assure that an informed decision or review will occur.
7.2.1 Project Briefing Material and Supporting Documentation. A draft of the project
briefing material and supporting documentation should be provided to the Office of
Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) and representatives for the board
members by the cognizant PSO. The draft briefing will be reviewed for conformance to
Departmental orders and policies and to identify any remaining issues for discussion at
the Pre-ESAAB meeting.
7.2.1.1 Inspector General (IG) / Government Accountability Office (GAO) /
Congressional Report Check. The Program shall identify recent IG, GAO, and
Congressional audit activity, reviews, reports, interest/support to the Acquisition
Executive. This action shall be completed and reviewed at the pre-ESAAB meeting.
7.2.2 Pre-ESAAB Meeting. The program and project managers will schedule and conduct a
“dry-run” of the presentation for the sponsoring PSO for review and resolution of issues
prior to the ESAAB meeting. The Pre-ESAAB members should be invited to:
Participate in a final exchange of ideas;
Assure compliance with Departmental policy and procedures;
4
Discuss and resolve outstanding issues;
Determine the status of any independent project review (e.g., EIR or IPR) issues;
Cover the status of administrative actions; and
Set a schedule for remaining actions.
At the conclusion of the “dry-run,” a recommendation shall be made by OECM to the
PSO on the readiness of the project to proceed with the scheduled ESAAB meeting based
on the completeness of material and administrative actions presented at the “dry-run.”
7.2.3 Acquisition Executive Pre-Brief Meeting. A pre-briefing is conducted by OECM for
the Acquisition Executive to assist in their preparation for the board meeting. The
objectives of this pre-brief are to:
Acquaint the Acquisition Executive with the background and description of the
project;
Provide an independent assessment of the project;
Provide an independent assessment of remaining issues/problems to be presented with
recommended solutions;
Clarify any technical and management items; and
Provide a final status on administrative actions so as not to consume too much time
during the formal meeting.
7.2.4 ESAAB Staff Memorandum. The Secretariat shall prepare a staff memorandum (see
Appendix F) summarizing the results of the meeting.
7.2.4.1 The staff memorandum will specify SAE decisions reached (see Appendix E,
Decision Memorandum), actions assigned, results of special studies and assessments,
limitations associated with approvals, resource levels which may be used for
budgetary and organizational planning, constraints on systems development and
definition, and schedules for accomplishing action items. A summary of the
approved cost, schedule, and technical baselines will be annotated within the meeting
minutes. The ESAAB meeting minutes (see Appendix G) will be attached to the
memorandum.
7.2.4.2 The Secretariat will coordinate the staff memorandum with the appropriate board
members and advisors prior to forwarding it to the SAE. Dissenting views will be
included in the package. Non-concurrence on a coordinated document (e.g., Paper
ESAAB) by a member shall not require resolution prior to forwarding the request to
5
the SAE for a decision. Coordination from each board member will be obtained on
the final document.
7.3 Call for Special ESAAB Review. When an unforeseen review of a major system project
is required, the following steps should be taken:
7.3.1 ESAABs shall be requested by the Headquarters Program Secretarial Officer or their
PMSO director.
7.3.2 The memorandum shall be submitted 30-days prior to the proposed ESAAB date and
include a statement regarding the decision requested, background, supporting factors, and
any other relevant information.
7.3.3 The ESAAB Secretariat will coordinate subsequent actions with the Program Office.
8.0 “PAPER” ESAAB
In circumstances where the acquisition action is of relatively low monetary value, low
risk, and requires non-controversial decisions (i.e., baseline deviation and critical
decision approvals) that need Deputy Secretary approval, a streamlined ESAAB achieves
the required staff coordination and approval without convening a formal meeting of all
ESAAB members.
8.1 Procedures.
8.1.1 A streamline ESAAB process in lieu of convening a formal meeting should be
considered, when the following parameters are met:
Program Office requests OECM consider a streamline ESAAB in lieu of a formal
ESAAB meeting;
The Office of Management will determine: (1) if a streamline ESAAB is appropriate;
and (2) level of inter-office coordination required; and
At a minimum, all streamline ESAABs will be coordinated with OECM, the Chief
Financial Officer, and the Office of the General Counsel with the expectation of
expeditious concurrences. However, non-concurrence on a coordinated document by
a member shall not require resolution prior to forwarding the request to the SAE for a
decision.
9.0 ESAAB-EQUIVALENT MEETINGS
The Programs are authorized to make changes to projects that are smaller than the SAE
approval limits to include all non-major systems projects and projects with a TPC less
than $750M. The Programs shall create an ESAAB-equivalent entity to facilitate
decision making.
6
9.1 Procedures.
9.1.1 The designated AE will:
Appoint and chair acquisition advisory boards to provide advice and
recommendations on key project decisions.
Be delegated to a level commensurate with the size and complexity of the project and
in accordance with Departmental policies and orders.
Operate within the specific limits of their delegated authority.
9.1.2 The advisory board should replicate functions performed by the ESAAB.
9.1.3 Members may be selected from within the AE’s organization; however, at least one
member not under the AE will be designated as a contributing member.
9.1.4 The OECM will provide a representative to each advisory board for projects with a TPC
greater than or equal to $100M.
9.1.5 The OECM may be invited to attend advisory boards for projects with a TPC less than
$100M, but will not be a board member.
9.1.6 The implementing documentation and composition of each advisory boards along with
meeting agendas and minutes will be provided to OECM.
Appendix A
Page 1
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AE Acquisition Executive
BCP Baseline Change Proposal
BSF Biological Sciences Facility
CD Critical Decision
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CRL Capability Replacement Laboratory
CSF Computational Sciences Facility
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EIR External Independent Review
EM Office of Environmental Management
ESAAB Energy System Acquisition Advisory Board
ESH&Q Environmental, Safety, Health & Quality Assurance
EVMS Earned Value Management System
FE Fossil Energy
FPD Federal Project Director
FY Fiscal Year
GC Office of General Counsel
HS Office of Health, Safety and Security
Appendix A DRAFT OECM SOP 413.3-1
Page 2 January 4, 2010
IPR Independent Project Review
IPT Integrated Project Team
KPP Key Performance Parameter
LDL Large Detector Laboratory
LM Legacy Management
M Million
MA Office of Management
MS Major System
NA Office of Defense Programs
NE Office of Nuclear Energy
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration
O Order
OECM Office of Engineering and Construction Management
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OPC Other Project Costs
P Policy
PEP Project Execution Plan
PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
PSF Physical Sciences Facility
PSO Program Secretarial Officer
REA Request for Equitable Adjustment
RW Radioactive Waste
Appendix A
Page 3
SAE Secretarial Acquisition Executive
SC Office of Science
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
TPC Total Project Cost
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
Appendix B
Page 1
APPENDIX B
ESAAB ACTIVITIES TIMELINE
The steps outlined below provide the framework and normal working times and responsibilities
for the activities prior to and immediately following the ESAAB:
Activity Responsible
Office
Calendar Days
Relative to Meeting
Notify ESAAB Secretariat PSO 90 days
Submit written request to Secretariat for ESAAB
review
PSO 60 days
Schedule pre-ESAAB meeting PSO 40 days
Prepare draft briefing material and supporting
documentation
PSO 30 days
Distribute briefing material for pre-ESAAB
meeting
PSO 25 days
Conduct pre-ESAAB meeting PSO 20 days
Comment on pre-ESAAB presentation ESAAB
Members
15 days
Confirm proposed ESAAB date with Acquisition
Executive
ESAAB
Secretariat
14 days
Submit ESAAB meeting request ESAAB
Secretariat
12 Days
Finalize briefing material and supporting
documentation
PSO 10 days
Distribute final briefing material to ESAAB
members
ESAAB
Secretariat
7 days
Conduct SAE pre-brief meeting ESAAB
Secretariat
2 days
Conduct ESAAB meeting SAE 0 days
Prepare staff memorandum of decision with
actions and provide required project
documentation (updated by PSO) reflecting
ESAAB decisions and submit for SAE approval
and issuance
ESAAB
Secretariat
+15 days
Appendix C
Page 1
APPENDIX C
PRESENTATION OUTLINE FOR THE ESAAB MEETING
1. GENERAL. These guidelines have been prepared to aid program and project managers in
their preparation of presentation materials for ESAAB meetings.
2. COMPOSITION. Each presentation will be slightly different given the decision (e.g.,
baseline change proposal) required of the SAE. The following outline is a guide to assist in
compiling the ESAAB presentation.
a. CD-0, Approve Mission Need
Title Page
Mission / Objectives – Summarize the capability gap. Describe why the facilities,
equipment, or services currently existing are not sufficient to address the gap.
Explain the internal or external drivers (e.g., statute, regulation, legal agreement,
earmark, or Presidential directive).
Alternative Strategies – Identify high-level strategies/alternatives considered or to be
analyzed to meet the mission need.
Conceptual Scope
Conceptual Schedule and Cost Range
Readiness to Proceed
Assumptions and Constraints
Risk Management
Mission Validation Independent Review – Summarize the issues, their resolution, and
subsequent recommendations.
Summary and Recommendation
b. CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range
Title Page
Mission / Objectives
Alternatives: (Discuss sorting, grading, and selecting criteria.)
Strategies
Technologies
Locations
Acquisition Strategies (e.g., design-build) and Plan (e.g., M&O)
Life Cycle Cost and Schedule
Preferred Alternative
Project Technical Scope/Process
Conceptual Schedule and Cost Range
Readiness to Proceed
Assumptions and Constraints
Risk Management
Integrated Project Team
Long Lead Procurements
Summary and Recommendation
Appendix C
Page 2
c. CD-2, Approve Performance Baseline, or BCP (see Section 3)
d. CD-3, Approve Start of Construction (see Section 3). Although using the same set of
slides as in CD-2, the Program should discuss the differences or what has changed since
CD-2 with the ESAAB members.
3. CHARTS. The charts may be augmented by additional charts that the Programs need to
illustrate project systems, problems, issues, or other pertinent factors. However, presentation
materials should be minimized to the extent possible. The outline that follows describes the
information that should be considered for inclusion on the presentation charts for a CD-2,
CD-3, or BCP approval request.
a. Title Page. Indicate the official name of the project, the name and organization of the
acquisition proponent, and the name of the presenters. State the ESAAB decision that
will be requested at the meeting.
b. Mission / Objectives. Indicate the original mission need statement. If the Program has
identified a credible performance gap between its current capabilities and stated goals,
then indicate the updates to the mission-related need. Also, state the key program and
project objectives. The relationship between the program and project objectives should
be clear.
c. Project Technical Scope / Process. Show a recent photograph or artist’s conception of
the project. Use a technical process flow chart or similar graphic to summarize how the
facility or machine is expected to function. Identify key requirements (or KPPs). Show
the basic technical baseline requirements for the project. A history of project related
events and a detailed technical description should be avoided due to time constraints.
The ESAAB members and advisors should be briefed by their respective staffs or may
request a briefing by the respective Program.
d. Baseline Project Summary Schedule. Provide an overview of project activity; display
the baseline schedule for the life of the project. Include all Acquisition Executive
decision points, other critical decisions and events, major milestones including ES&H
milestones that may impact the project’s critical path, and critical path for project
implementation. Also, state the tailoring strategy for adapting critical decision
requirements, if any.
e. Baseline Resource Plan. Show the funding authority profile available and anticipated.
Show both cumulative obligations and costs planned by fiscal year over the life of the
project. Actual costs and obligations to date shall be shown against these plans. All costs
and obligations shall be denoted in current-year dollars for the year of expenditure.
Address the basis of the cost/schedule estimate to include methodology and confidence
levels. Also, show the total estimated cost for design, construction, and startup to include
contingency, management reserve, fees, and ODCs. If a BCP, the Program must show
Appendix C
Page 3
how much funding is required and where the funding is coming from in the Program.
f. Readiness to Proceed. In a very brief, bullet style manner, summarize the status of each
critical decision prerequisite. Succinctly state the problem, issue, or item of concern, list
the corrective actions taken, the additional corrective actions required (with dates), and an
assessment of the impact on the project. Prepare a separate chart for each topic to be
discussed with whatever illustrative material is appropriate to present the problem, issue,
or item of concern in a fully informative manner. [Highlight the major system critical
decision prerequisites (as prescribed in DOE O 413.3A) needed to bring a project to the
next major milestone in the acquisition phase.]
g. Assumptions and Constraints. Identify the assumptions and constraints related to the
project life cycle to include phases of design, construction, commissioning and
operations.
h. Risk Management. Summarize the key risks resulting from assumptions, requirements,
technology readiness, staffing and the like. Include your mitigation plans as well as the
likelihood of occurrence and consequence of impact.
i. Project Contract Status. Review or update the project’s acquisition plan and the
contractor’s performance to date.
j. Integrated Project Team. Show the participating organizations and their
responsibilities in the form of an organization chart. This is the opportunity to depict the
manner in which the project is being managed. Laboratory/contractor/partner
responsibilities should be included. Also show, in a separate box, a summary of the DOE
staffing, both on-board and planned.
k. ICE, EIR, and EVMS Summary. Summarize the resolution of ICE, major EIR
findings, and the status of EVMS certification.
l. Summary and Recommendation. Highlight the key points from the presentation,
restate the decision requested, and identify the next actions planned following the
requested decision by the Acquisition Executive.
1
APPENDIX D
ESAAB MEMBERS
Full-time ESAAB Members Organization Symbol Principal Ext. Scheduler
Deputy Secretary, Secretarial
Acquisition Executive (ESAAB
Chair)
S-2 Dan Poneman 6-5500 Paige Fitzgerald
Associate Deputy Secretary S-2 Mel Williams 6-9500 John Stewart
Under Secretary for Energy
(Acting)
S-3 Vacant 6-7700 Miles Brundage
Under Secretary for Science S-4 Steve Koonin 586-
0505
Megan Chambers
Office of General Counsel GC-1 Sean Lev 6-5281 Katharine Dickerson
Administrator, Office of NNSA NA-1 Thomas D’Agostino 6-5555 David Alldridge
Director, Office of Management MA-1 Ingrid Kolb 6-2550 Robin Henderson
Office of the Chief Financial
Officer
CF-1 Owen Barwell 6-4171 Shannon Shriber
Assistant Secretary, Office of
Environmental Management
EM-1 David Huizenga 6-7709 Lori Schmader
Chief Health, Safety and
Security Officer
HS-1 Glenn Podonsky 3-3777 Frances Rose
Chief of Defense Nuclear Safety NA-
SH-10
Don Nichols 6-8216 Lalissa McKnight
Chief of Nuclear Safety S-5 Richard “Chip”
Lagdon
6-0799 Elaine Merchant
Deputy Administrator, Office of
Defense Programs
NA-10 Donald Cook 6-2179 Mary Laders-Haller
Director, Office of Science SC-1 William F. Brinkman 6-5430 Dionne Claxton
Director, Office of Engineering
& Construction Management
MA-50 Paul Bosco 6-3524 Rosalyn Matthews
Director of Procurement &
Management Assistance (Acting)
MA-60 Patrick Ferraro 7-1388 Sandra Addison
2
Please note: this is the “As-Needed” list and all these members need not be invited.
As-Needed ESAAB Members Organization Symbol Principal Ext. Scheduler
Associate Administrator for
Acquisition and Project
Management
NA-APM-
1
Bob Raines 6-5627 Jim Fores
Director, Office of Budget CF-30 Christopher Johns 6-4049 Derrick Nayo
Deputy Director for Budget
Analysis
CF-31 Shalini Benson 6-6023 Derrick Nayo
Deputy Director for Budget
Operations.
CF-32 Hose Villar 6-8764 Derrick Nayo
Office of Engineering &
Construction Management
MA-50 Vacant 6-5627 Rosalyn Matthews
Chief Acquisition Officer MA-1 VACANT 6-2550 Robin Henderson
PSO – SC SC-28 Daniel Lehman 3-4840 Self
PSO – EM-10 EM-10 Vacant 3-5838 Self
Project Assistance & Assurance EM-11 Lowell Ely 3-6821 Self
DAS Acquisition & Contract
Mgmt
EM-80 Jack Surash 6-6382 Trina Johnson
PSO – NNSA NA-APM-
20
Mike Hickman 6-8872 Self
Assistant Secretary Fossil
Energy (FE projects only)
FE-1 Charles D.
McConnel
6-6660 Audrey Johnson-
Tolbert
Assistant Secretary EERE
(EERE projects only)
EE-1 Henry Kelly 6-9220 Meghan Condon
Director of Legacy Management LM-1 David Geiser 6-8324 Tianna Rodriquez
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Energy
NE-1 Peter Lyons 6-2240 Alison Kennedy
3
Pre-ESAAB MEMBERS
Organization Symbol Principal Ext. Scheduler
Director, Office of Budget CF-30 Christopher Johns 6-4049 Derrick Nayo
Deputy Director for Budget
Analysis
CF-31 Shalini Benson 6-6023 Derrick Nayo
CFO/Cognizant Budget
Examiner (SC)
CF-30 John Stann 3-7790 Self
CFO/Cognizant Budget
Examiner (NNSA, SC)
CF-31 Mark Joseph 6-7717
Self
CFO/Cognizant Budget
Examiner (SC)
CF-31 Beverly Kipe 3-2254 Self
CFO/ Cognizant Budget
Examiner (SC)
CF-31 Natalia Melcer 6-5833
Self
CFO/Cognizant Budget
Examiner (EM)
CF-31 Greg Singleton 7-6092 Self
CFO/Cognizant Budget
Examiner (OE, PMAs)
CF-31 Alex Dey 6-5854 Self
EERE/Director, Sustainability
Performance Office
EE-2N Jennifer MacDonald 6-8645 Kristina Wheeler
OECM MA-50 Paul Bosco 6-3524 Rosalyn Matthews
OECM MA-50 Vacant Rosalyn Matthews
OECM/Cognizant Project
Analyst (Team Lead)
MA-50 Mike Peek 6-8223 Self
OECM/Cognizant Project
Analyst (EM-RL, ORP-Tank
Farm, SLAC, EM-INL)
MA-50 Mark Whitson 7-1697 Self
OECM/Cognizant Project
Analyst (NNSA)
MA-50 John White 6-3716
Self
OECM/Cognizant Project
Analyst (WTP, NNSA-Pantex,
EM-Oak Ridge, ETTP, Y-12,
PPPO)
MA-50 Darren Morton 7-1940
Self
OECM/Cognizant Project
Analyst (EM-SR, NE)
MA-50 Rick Elliott 7-1520 Self
OECM/Cognizant Project
Analyst (NNSA-SRS, EE)
MA-50 Tony Ermovick 6-8254 Self
OECM/Cognizant Project
Analyst (SC, EM-LANL/LLNL/
LBNL)
MA-50 Brian Huizenga 6-9588
Self
OECM/Cognizant Project
Analyst (ORP-WTP)
MA-50 Brian Kong 6-3151 Self
OECM/ Cognizant Project
Analyst (EM-Small Sites, FE)
MA-50 Tom Bruder 6-0199 Self
4
Pre-ESAAB Members (cont.)
Organization Symbol Principal Ext. Scheduler
HSS HS-30 Jim O'Brien 3-1408 Self
HSS HS-31 Pranab Guha 3-7089 Self
NNSA NA-
APM-20
Katherine O'Mara 6-6867 Self
NNSA NA-
APM-20
Mike Hickman 6-8872
3-3357
Self
NNSA NA-
APM-20
Jane Gartner 3-8235 Self
Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for EM
EM-2 Tracy Mustin 6-5216 Lori Schmader
EM EM-10 VACANT Self
EM EM-11 Lowell Ely 3-6821 Self
EM EM-80 Jack Surash 6-6382 Trina Johnson
EM EM-80 Suneel Kapur 6-0110 Self
SC SC-28 Daniel Lehman 3-4840 Self
SC SC-28 Kin Chao 3-4116 Self
SC SC-28 Casey Clark 3-5451 Self
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Energy
NE-3 Richard Stark 3-4407 Self
Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
Energy
NE-31 Mary McCune 3-8152 Self
Office of Procurement and
Assistance Management
MA-60 David Boyd 7-1310 Sandra Addison
Chief of Nuclear Safety CNS Joseph “Tim” Arcano 3-0139 Self
Chief of Nuclear Safety CNS
Gustave “Bud”
Danielson
3-2954 Self
General Counsel GC-31 Steve Miller 6-2925 Self
General Counsel GC-50 Sean Lev 6-7347 Self
Office of NEPA Policy and
Compliance
GC-54 Carol Borgstrom 6-4600 Self
Office of NEPA Policy and
Compliance
GC-54 Jim Daniel 6-9760 Self
General Counsel GC-60 Gena Cadieux 6-3426 Lisa Brown
General Counsel GC-61 VACANT Lisa Brown
DRAFT OECM SOP 413.3-1 Appendix E
January 4, 2010 Page 1
APPENDIX E
EXAMPLE OF THE DECISION MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM FOR RAYMOND L. ORBACH
UNDER SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE
THROUGH: INGRID KOLB
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
FROM: JEFFREY F. KUPFER
ACTING DEPUTY SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Critical Decision (CD)-3, Approve Start of Construction for the
National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven National
Laboratory
As the Secretarial Acquisition Executive for the Office of Science’s (SC) National Synchrotron
Light Source II (NSLS II) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, I approve the Start of
Construction (CD-3). The project was baselined at CD-2 with a Total Project Cost (TPC) of
$912M and a June 2015 completion date.
Any conditions coincident with this critical decision approval are reflected within the appropriate
Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board minutes.
cc: Bud Albright, Under Secretary of Energy
DRAFT OECM SOP 413.3-1 Appendix F
January 4, 2010 Page 1
APPENDIX F
EXAMPLE OF THE STAFF MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM FOR DANIEL B. PONEMAN
DEPUTY SECRETARY
THROUGH: INGRID KOLB
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
FROM: PAUL BOSCO
SECRETARIAT, ENERGY SYSTEMS ACQUISITION
ADVISORY BOARD
SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes of the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board
(ESAAB) for Review and Discussion of the Critical Decision-2
(Approve Performance Baseline) for the Physical Sciences Facility
(PSF) project at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
ISSUE: Need approval of CD-2 and ESAAB meeting minutes.
BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2007, the Deputy Secretary chaired a meeting of the
ESAAB to discuss CD-2 for the PSF project at PNNL. PSF is a line
item construction project within the Capability Replacement
Laboratory (CRL) Program that relocates PNNL functions to
accommodate EM clean-up within the Hanford 300 area.
SENSITIVIES: None
POLICY IMPACT: None
RECOMMENDATION: Sign the CD-2 approval and ESAAB meeting minute memorandums.
Attachments
DRAFT OECM SOP 413.3-1 Appendix G
January 4, 2010 Page 1
APPENDIX G
EXAMPLE OF THE ESAAB MEETING MINUTES
MEMORANDUM FOR DANIEL B. PONEMAN
DEPUTY SECRETARY
THROUGH: INGRID KOLB
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
FROM: PAUL BOSCO
SECRETARIAT, ENERGY SYSTEMS ACQUISITION
ADVISORY BOARD
SUBJECT: Meeting Minutes of the Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board
(ESAAB) for Review and Discussion of the Critical Decision-2
(Approve Performance Baseline) for the Physical Sciences Facility
(PSF) project at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2007, the Deputy Secretary chaired a meeting of the
ESAAB to discuss Critical Decision-2 (CD-2, Approve Performance
Baseline) for the Physical Sciences Facility (PSF) project at the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). PSF is a line item
construction project within the Capability Replacement Laboratory
(CRL) Program that relocates PNNL functions to accommodate EM
clean-up within the Hanford 300 area. Prior Critical Decisions
include: CD-0 in September 2004, CD-1 in December 2005, and CD-
1R in December 2006.
The PSF project is managed by SC and is jointly sponsored (funded)
by SC ($98M), NNSA ($70M), and DHS ($56M) with a proposed
Total Project Cost (TPC) of $224M (the parenthetical monetary
numbers have been rounded). The success of the overall CRL mission
will depend on completion of several other related activities:
Construction of the Biological Sciences Facility (BSF) and the
Computational Sciences Facility (CSF) using a proposed
alternative financing strategy;
Area 300 utilities rerouting funded by EM;
Repairs/modifications to three retained buildings funded by
SC;
Installation of PSF Site utilities funded by the State of
Washington; and
Relocation of capabilities funded by PNNL.
Appendix G DRAFT OECM SOP 413.3-1
Page 2 January 4, 2010
DISCUSSION: Following the presentation by Chad Henderson, the Federal Project
Director, much discussion followed, including the continued need to
designate the PSF project as a Major System (MS) project. Even
though the TPC of $224M is well below the MS threshold, the
Capability Replacement Laboratory (CRL) program was designated as
a MS project because of complex interfaces between the many sub-
projects under the CRL and the joint funding by the Offices of Science,
National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of
Homeland Security. Marc Jones explained that the PSF project has
resolved most of these issues by agreeing to a funding strategy with the
sponsors in a Memorandum of Understanding and formalizing facility
turnover dates with EM. Mr. Jones also explained that the construction
scope is straightforward and the TPC is well below the dollar threshold
for a MS project. It was suggested that the SAE consider delegation of
specific AE authorities in conjunction with the requirement that SC
provide a quarterly briefing to the Deputy Secretary. Marc Jones
explained that delegation of authority for CD-3 to the Under Secretary
for Science was needed to maintain the project schedule. Charles
Anderson said that EM will miss milestones if the PSF project schedule
slips.
The Deputy Secretary asked whether there was any contamination
under building 325. Charles Anderson explained that EM was
confident that the contamination under the building was localized and
did not pose any risk of contributing to existing contamination plumes.
Cleanup of any contamination under the building after the mission life
of the facility would be straightforward.
Mary Egger asked about the relationship of the scope of the proposed
alternatively financed buildings to the PSF and the risk to the overall
CRL project if that proposal was not approved. Dr. Orbach stated that
the risk of moving forward with the PSF project before approval of the
business case was minimal. In his view, the alternative financing was
the best strategy. He recommended that the PSF project proceed while
the acquisition strategy for the other two facilities is decided.
A question was raised as to why DHS was not represented on the IPT.
SC explained that DHS is fully supportive of the approach and has
signed the Project Execution Plan (PEP). DHS has been and will be
kept informed through regular project reviews. SC was asked if this
project was in the DHS five-year budget plan. Dr. Orbach replied that
DHS does not have five-year budget plans, however DHS (Adm.
Cohen) has promised full support for the project and if DHS does not
come through because of Congressional action, or any other reason, SC
will fund the shortfall.
DRAFT OECM SOP 413.3-1 Appendix G
January 4, 2010 Page 3
Ed Simpson asked how Battelle will be held accountable for
performance on this project. George Malosh stated that the Battelle
contract specifically includes metrics that measure cost and schedule
performance for construction projects. These metrics will influence
Battelle’s overall scorecard and the award fee. PNNL has made
significant personnel changes at the management level to address past
performance issues.
Regarding a question about safety risks, Chip Langdon stated that his
organization had reviewed the project safety documentation and found
that the project team had satisfactorily addressed all nuclear safety
issues.
MA recommended that the Deputy Secretary:
Approve PSF project performance baseline with TPC of
$224M and project completion date of Feb 2011 (CD-2).
Approve the PEP and delegate approval of future updates of
the PEP to the Under Secretary for SC.
Delegate approval of start of early construction for site
preparation (CD-3a).
Delegate approval of the business case for alternatively
financed facilities to the Under Secretary for Science.
RECOMMENDATION: Deputy Secretary sign the attached memorandum approving the
project performance baseline (CD-2) and delegating AE authority to
approve:
(1) Start of early construction for site preparation (CD-3a);
(2) Business case for alternative financing of the BSF and the CSF
(subject to successful review and agreement from OMB); and
(3) Future updates to the PEP.
Approved: _________________
Disapproved: _________________
Date: _________________
Related Documents
